I Am That I Am & Those Religious Movements

[Ouroboros]

Because the topic of emotion could easily fill 50 pages of these threads. I only explained a small portion here. But before I go much further, please answer my question, "was I wrong?"

If it had to fill 50 pages, why could I get the point from the post above? You made it very simple and clear in that post, and didn't need 50 pages. You're exaggerating.

 

And yes, you were wrong. Your statement "Emotion causes blindness" is wrong and false. Prove that this is the case.

 

You had made SO many false accusations and explanations that as I SAID, I was "overwhelmed" with how much there was to clarify. You jumped to conclusions (an emotional result) and made accusations and proposed to back them up with more jumped to conclusions. That was the first time since I have been here that I simply said "too much to clarify" And I was done.

And you're jumping to conclusions too, and skipping over explanations that are clearly screaming in your face. And yet you throw accusations left and right to redirect the discussion.

 

And what about "too much to clarify" when you managed to do so a few posts above? You can if you really want to, but I have to push you to do it. You're behavior is extremely childish, and you're not coming forward as a hardass Israeli secret agent guy.

 

You just love to accuse other people of your own shortcomings.

 

The technical accuracy of what I said is still exactly right.

You're still wrong. "Emotions make you blind" is wrong. You could say "EXTREME emotions make you blind" or "emotions COULD make you blind", but a strict generalization that you did was what I argued against. So I was NOT wrong.

 

The point to minimizing the emotions is just to reduce the blindness that EVERY emotion is causing such that blindness can be avoided (as much as possible). In reality EVERY emotion is blindness itself.

So what emotion do you have now? Or are you emotionless? If you have an emotion right now, then you're blind and your arguments are blinded by your emotions, and you can't see why you are wrong.

 

So is passion or enthusiasm blindness?

 

This whole discussion is like arguing with a Spock wannabe!!!

 

 

This is a requirement of the mind, there is no choice except to try to balance the variety by never allowing any feeling to get too much control.

"Too much control", don't you mean "Too not get any control", because every, all and any kind of emotion is causing you to go blind. That was your point. So how can you suddenly go back on that issue and claim only some emotions have to go. Isn't it that if all and any kind of emotion makes you blind, you have to get rid of every and all emotions to be able to think at all. Have you done it? No, didn't think so.

 

FEAR is the biggest culprit resulting in pride/ego, peer pressure, anger, depression, and many others.

So you tell me, was I wrong?

Yes.

 

And concerning the point if we keep our discussion on track of the topic or not, you have not really understood the difference between the "Lion's Den" and the "Colosseum", and I recommend that you take a little time to ponder about why we have so many different sections on this site, and what the differences are.

Probably false accusation. I think I well know the difference, but if there is something that I am missing, then please point it out. But the issue of staying on topic is one that I do NOT think I have mis-represented.

 

Even in the Lion's den, although MORE deviation and emotionalism is allowed, the topic shouldn't be totally derailed as it is on this one now. In the Lion's Den, I seldom call anyone down about emotionalism, I merely raise how self defeating it is, which would be allowed because it is the Lion's Den and such a deviation of topic is allowed "for SHORT periods".

Who made you a moderator?

 

I would be glad to explain everything you ever wanted to know about emotion from nuts to bolts, but it is a BIG subject that starts boringly logical and builds to exactly where the problems come into play, then to how they affect everything else.

You're wrong again. Because you have argued with passion, enthusiasm and emotions the last couple of pages, and nothing logical of any sort.

[Cerise]

Oh crap...it's the cycle of blame.

 

Oh crap...it's the forgiveness police! Hide me.

[Amanda]

Hans, present the topic so it will be legit. Stay on topic and insist that EVERYONE ELSE do the same. And I will be glad to show you what you're asking about. Else, you are just continuing what she called the "blame cycle"

 

But expect to be embarrassed.

 

Ssel, my friend... there is something called diplomacy. More specifically, using skills in handling affairs without arousing hostility.

 

There's too many alpha males here or something!

 

I think you do have a lot to offer Ssel and you have enriched my life with your posts! It's just that in the manner in which you present it and interact often lacks some diplomacy. Do you see where you are perpetuating blame and soiciting hostility by accusing HanSolo of the blame cycle? I know you don't mean to do this, yet that is the message you are giving. Your style of communicating is giving the wrong impression of you! HanSolo and Crazy Tiger happen to be some of the nicest posters on here! C'mon you guys!

 

 

Let's just stop and get back on the subject of this thread, OK?

 

Anyway, what is the core of mostly ALL the spiritual teachers? Is it ultimately to treat everyone with love, do unto others as you'd have them do unto you? This seems to be the ultimate message to me of these that I've heard. Actually, they all have the same message, perhaps different ways of manifesting it. It's like the five blind men and the elephant. Each POV gives us a better picture of what the whole thing looks like, doesn't it?

[Cerise]

Actually, the five blind men didn't get a good picture of the elephant at all. They got a fragmented and misinterpreted picture of an elephant depending on which part the grasped hold of.

 

That's if I'm remembering my fables correctly. It's been a long time since fifth grade storytelling.

[Amanda]

Actually, the five blind men didn't get a good picture of the elephant at all. They got a fragmented and misinterpreted picture of an elephant depending on which part the grasped hold of.

 

That's if I'm remembering my fables correctly. It's been a long time since fifth grade storytelling.

Cerise, I had to find an example that didn't need a lot of explaining! You're right... it still came out fragmented, yet if we put them all together and realize it may incorporate at least some of each... we might can get a better perspective of what enlightenment is. BTW, there are a lot more than 5 spiritual aspects if we include some of the Pagans, Wiccas, Druids, Shaman, and others too. Of course, the total concept of Spirituality is probably a lot bigger than an elephant.

[Fweethawt]

Han, is that you?!?!?

[Ouroboros]

Actually, the five blind men didn't get a good picture of the elephant at all. They got a fragmented and misinterpreted picture of an elephant depending on which part the grasped hold of.

 

That's if I'm remembering my fables correctly. It's been a long time since fifth grade storytelling.

My sig-line is the last line of the poem. I have the full poem somewhere... That's for another time.

 

 

Han, is that you?!?!?

You missed me?

 

Business is busy, so I come and go when I manage to get some time.

 

But I love to get into a head-butting-contest now and then! Hehe.

[not1not2]

Just to beat a dead horse:

 

It's not so much that emotion necessarily causes blindness, but rather that it colors perception. As long as are aware of the coloration, then our perception is not distorted or blinded. The only blindness comes in not being aware of how the emotion shapes our perceptions of any given situation or fact.

 

Additionally, emotion does tell us something very important, so it is important not to become a Vulcan (as much as I love Spock) and simply repress them or throw them away. In other words, when we have an emotional response, we damn well better not push it aside, but, rather, we should look into the why our emotion is arising. In otherwords, something is going on here that we either are not fully aware of or have not fully understood. Noticing and understanding our emotional perceptions is incredibly important in attaining peace of mind and seeing clearly.

 

I don't know how much Ssel meant by his/her (?) statement, but it could easily be taken to the extreme that we should be emotionless individuals.

 

just my 2 cents.

 

_/\_

[Ssel]

but it could easily be taken to the extreme that we should be emotionless individuals.

We couldn't be even if we tried.

 

But I can clearly see that psychology is a subject that is far too assumed and apparently not really being taught.

 

As has been pointed out, your emotionalism is being used against you. My suggestion is that you learn to hold it steady on your own so that others can't cause your misperception/distortion (deceptions) and color your world by what suits THEM rather than you.

 

You gain control of something that is out of control in one direction by insisting on the opposite direction until the balance is met, then you stop insisting and let it learn how to KEEP balance.

 

This isn't to say that you simply resist everything, but guide it back, not merely make it comfortable.

[Ouroboros]

..

I don't know how much Ssel meant by his/her (?) statement, but it could easily be taken to the extreme that we should be emotionless individuals.

...

Exactly.

[not1not2]

but it could easily be taken to the extreme that we should be emotionless individuals.

We couldn't be even if we tried.

 

But I can clearly see that psychology is a subject that is far too assumed and apparently not really being taught.

 

As has been pointed out, your emotionalism is being used against you. My suggestion is that you learn to hold it steady on your own so that others can't cause your misperception/distortion (deceptions) and color your world by what suits THEM rather than you.

 

You gain control of something that is out of control in one direction by insisting on the opposite direction until the balance is met, then you stop insisting and let it learn how to KEEP balance.

 

This isn't to say that you simply resist everything, but guide it back, not merely make it comfortable.

 

All I am saying is that your presentation was unbalanced in the first place. I'm not saying you didn't understand what I'm saying, just that your statement gave of a false impression and was an extreme view when taken absolutely.

 

Additionally, 'you' 'gain control' of something by being aware of it and its causes, along with its affects, not by insisting on the opposite direction. Rather you should insist on no direction and just watch the pendulum swing and eventually gain insight into why it is swinging and how that swinging distorts your view of reality.

 

In my current understanding, viewing the emotion as the problem is an incorrect view. It is more correct that our personal involvement in the emotion, in an unconscious manner, is what creates the problem.

 

Awareness is the key here.

 

BTW, the entire point of my post was to elucidate something that was not properly presented, IMO.

 

take care

_/\_

metta

[Ssel]

Awareness is the key here.

No argument. But after you are aware, then you just sit and watch? Or do you make corrections? (talking about within yourself)

[not1not2]

Awareness is the key here.

No argument. But after you are aware, then you just sit and watch? Or do you make corrections? (talking about within yourself)

Yes

 

_/\_

[Vigile]

Call me crazy if you will, but somehow I don't see where fighting a bully brings more peace than trying to understand why they are the way they are and forgiving them for reacting to something in their own lives that has caused them to emotionally react when someone pushes their buttons.

 

 

I'm sorry, but if you read the tagline at the top of your window it says "Encouraging Ex-Christians" not trying to understand why SSEL is a completely over the top asshole who has yet to provide a rational explanation for his claims. We do not need to pander to SSEL who is bullying and not encouraging Ex-Christians. In fact, when SSEL or others causes Ex-Christians to avoid threads that he is on or when he derails threads to bring the focus on himself as he loves to do then he is in fact discouraging Ex-Christians. I know you like to defend him because he defends and agrees with you. The rest of us would like to live in a rational world where others are respectful to one another.

[Guest Guest]

I usually forgive but a requirement must usually be met first...the wrongdoer needs to apologize.

[not1not2]

Isn't it interesting how the only the first page of this thread is actually on topic?

 

Anybody ever read much on hindu philosophy? In it God is consider Sat-Chit-Ananda (Being-Consciousness-Bliss) in some schools and in others is regarded as Brahman (impersonal essence of reality). All of the Pantheon are anthropomorphisations of observable, though subtle, principalities. It is a very rich philosophy. Arguably more rich than the Greek mythology.

 

_/\_

metta

[Amanda]

 

 

Hi Vigile del Fuoco1! It seems to me that NBBTB was encoouraging ExChristians! Unfortunately this site can't go through all our paths first, and take care of all our situations for us. And I do understand this is to be a sanctuary for many of those dealing with condemnation from the religous right. However, NBBTB was just suggesting a method of dealing with people from whom people sense they were offended, as they encounter them. If you noticed her initial response, she said we should just ignore those that we find pushing our buttons, second, she said we might just forgive them. And yes, we do forgive people who don't ask for forgiveness, for ourself... not for them! Unforgiveness only hurts ourself! Can't you see where she was just suggesting an appropriate coping skill in the scope of a bigger picture?

 

Just my .02, fwiw.

[Guest Guest_SerenityNow_*]

And I do understand this is to be a sanctuary for many of those dealing with condemnation from the religous right.

 

Amanda, please do not take this the wrong way because you know that I think the world of you. Where on this site does it say "Ex-Christian, Support from the Religious Right"? There are ex-liberal Christians here too, it isn't just those who were part of the religious right. I came here for support from Christianity despite the left or right of it.

 

As for the rest of your post, I agree that we can forgive people without them having asked for forgiveness but I don't think there is a universal truth in it that it hurts people. SSel isn't hurting me, I doubt he's "hurt" anyone. What he has done and continues to do is be arrogant to ANYONE who does not agree with him. He continously derails threads and shifts the focus to him. All one needs to be on his good side is to agree with one or more of his little points, then you will not get insulted or put down.

 

I mean this in the nicest and most sincere possible way...If you liberal Christians want so badly to discuss and enlighten each other with your views of the bible, why not start your own website?

[Amanda]

Isn't it interesting how the only the first page of this thread is actually on topic?

 

Anybody ever read much on hindu philosophy? In it God is consider Sat-Chit-Ananda (Being-Consciousness-Bliss) in some schools and in others is regarded as Brahman (impersonal essence of reality). All of the Pantheon are anthropomorphisations of observable, though subtle, principalities. It is a very rich philosophy. Arguably more rich than the Greek mythology.

 

_/\_

metta

 

Hi Not1not2! Wow, for such a short post... you said a lot of thought provoking ideas, IMO! What do you mean by an impersonal essence of reality? This gives me the impression of God as something to which we are not connected, yet we imposed human qualities on God to make 'it' connected to us.

[NotBlinded]

Oh crap...it's the cycle of blame.

 

Oh crap...it's the forgiveness police! Hide me.

Now that's an oxymoron!

 

Call me crazy if you will, but somehow I don't see where fighting a bully brings more peace than trying to understand why they are the way they are and forgiving them for reacting to something in their own lives that has caused them to emotionally react when someone pushes their buttons.

 

 

I'm sorry, but if you read the tagline at the top of your window it says "Encouraging Ex-Christians" not trying to understand why SSEL is a completely over the top asshole who has yet to provide a rational explanation for his claims. We do not need to pander to SSEL who is bullying and not encouraging Ex-Christians. In fact, when SSEL or others causes Ex-Christians to avoid threads that he is on or when he derails threads to bring the focus on himself as he loves to do then he is in fact discouraging Ex-Christians. I know you like to defend him because he defends and agrees with you. The rest of us would like to live in a rational world where others are respectful to one another.

I am an ex-christian and I respect your opinion. Thanks.

[Vigile]

Just my .02, fwiw.

 

There you go getting all esoteric on me again Amanda

 

I'll let Cerise answer your points on forgiveness, since this is her turf and not really a big issue for me. My point to NBBTL was that the last person on this board who needs defending is the guy that is stomping around the playroom in his snowboots. I didn't mean to imply that she was discouraging anyone.

 

As far as forgiving SSEL, I have nothing to forgive him for. I'd just prefer if he would learn to play nicer or find somewhere else to play.

[Amanda]

And I do understand this is to be a sanctuary for many of those dealing with condemnation from the religous right.

 

Amanda, please do not take this the wrong way because you know that I think the world of you. Where on this site does it say "Ex-Christian, Support from the Religious Right"? There are ex-liberal Christians here too, it isn't just those who were part of the religious right. I came here for support from Christianity despite the left or right of it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

I mean this in the nicest and most sincere possible way...If you liberal Christians want so badly to discuss and enlighten each other with your views of the bible, why not start your own website?

 

Hi Serentiy Now! I can never take what you say the wrong way, because I know your heart! I was just referring to more specifically the issue of condemnation... which many sensed was a big part of Ssel's style in his posts. I can tell you from posting for a short time on a fundamentalist site, that condemnation can be a very damaging offense! I respect very much that this is to be a sanctuary from such disregard of respectful behavior!

 

I participate on this site because I have found it to be the best group of people I've ever encountered! Further, I've grown and found more enrichment here than anywhere else. It is because this site allows EVERYONE to express their ideas with little or no censorship. They allow people to express their opinions and trust people's own logic to determine Truth. It's great to recieve evaluations from a very diverse group of sincere individuals that offer different insights that one has not considered, expanding one's view of life. In short, this is the most ideal arena of seeking Truth! That alone is quite refreshing! Add that most people here have a goal of helping each other grow in attaining a more insightful look at themself. For that... I'm most appreciative and have an endearing regard for all the people here, hence, this site. I've grown immensely from this place, and I obviously value this open arena very much! Me leave?

 

Having said that... I think that these posts in which you are referring have not been in defense of Ssel, myself, or anyone else! I guess I have not been very effective in communicating that I only suggest a coping skill in dealing with what seems to be offensive people, so they no longer can have the effect they have on many people. I've found that I can't go through life changing people, but I can change the way I look at them. Therefore, change the effect they have on me. That seems more appropriate than choosing to go through life with the intent of removing or changing them all....

[NotBlinded]

Edit: I don't mean to imply that liberal christians shouldn't be welcome, just that it's a mistake to think that we have only left the right of Christianity. I also don't mean that your opinions aren't welcome or necessary, just sometimes I feel like you guys are "preaching" to me. Lately though it seems as if we're being bombarded with liberal teachings as if it's the "right" way. I feel like I'm at church except a sweetened version and despite the sweetness in a way I feel like a "sinner" again if I don't agree with even your version. Even liberal christianity labels people sinners, I'm not a sinner because there is no such thing. That being said...why don't one or some of you get together and offer a support site for those who WANT and will be accepting of those teachings, who don't mind being called a sinner in a nicer way?

I apologize if it appears as preaching. I have just found something that I thought I would share with the people that helped me the most in my time of need when I came here almost 2 years ago. I probably wouldn't have believed me either! I was welcomed by everyone here and now I sense that not being the case. Well, I'm not leaving unless I'm forced. Where are the ones now that supported me when I was rejecting the 'faith' by their standards? It seems that if I don't play the literalist view when rejecting christianity, I am not part of this community any longer. Is there a certain way that one has to reject christianity before being welcomed? Aren't the ones that reject christianity by its literal interpretation preaching their opinions also? I also reject the literalist view, but I don't reject the whole thing because of it. Is that what I have to do...reject it totally? If it doesn't hold up to the literalist interpretation, then it's trash?

 

The only "sin" I believe in is that of people not doing/being the best person they can be. If anyone falls short but tried their best, how can that be seen as a sin? That's all sin means...to fall short or miss the mark (without effort). There is no judge that is going to curse anyone either. The only judge is yourself.

 

Anyway, now that my emotional outburst is over with, I'll go see who else I can alienate.

[not1not2]

Isn't it interesting how the only the first page of this thread is actually on topic?

 

Anybody ever read much on hindu philosophy? In it God is consider Sat-Chit-Ananda (Being-Consciousness-Bliss) in some schools and in others is regarded as Brahman (impersonal essence of reality). All of the Pantheon are anthropomorphisations of observable, though subtle, principalities. It is a very rich philosophy. Arguably more rich than the Greek mythology.

 

_/\_

metta

 

Hi Not1not2! Wow, for such a short post... you said a lot of thought provoking ideas, IMO! What do you mean by an impersonal essence of reality? This gives me the impression of God as something to which we are not connected, yet we imposed human qualities on God to make 'it' connected to us.

 

It's more like it is the essence of us. It is the essence of personality, the essence of being, the essence of any given object. It is so intimate with us, that it appears as inconsequential. Like the taste of air. It is us, but it is not us as is not a conditioned element though it creates and takes on the conditioned character of all the objects in the universe. This idea closely correlates with Mind-Only philosophy, Taoism and the idea of thusness or isness (that's what being consciousness or SatChit is all about). It's the very aspect of consciousness that colors reality with it's beingness and is the foundation of what is known as the Ahamkara ('I-maker') in Samkhya philosophy.

 

Take care

 

_/\_

metta

[Amanda]

I'd just prefer if he would learn to play nicer or find somewhere else to play.

 

Vigile del Fuoco1... I think we can ALL agree with that! It's just some of us were trying to help him see the error of his style of communicating here. I am very thankful that there were those persistent enough to help me see areas in my life that could use improvements. I think I'm a better person from participating here, and I was hoping this site would have the same effect for others. That's all.